Paragon Learning Style Inventory

How do we explain students making choices such as dropping
out, taking elective courses, getting involved in activities, feeling satisfied
with their school environment?

Determining differences among contrasting school samples has
been the object of much research and conjecture over the years . Although most
of the "learning styles" and cognitive research has focused on
assessing individual students for the purposes of helping them and their
teachers provide the optimal learning environment for their needs. While this
application is valid if not critical, a broader understanding of learning style
patterns on a systemic level seems necessary. As schools continue the trend
toward becoming ever more tailored to different needs and types of students, the
issue around defining these populations will become more .

One such approach to defining systematic difference in the
area of learning is with dimensions of psychological or perceptual type (Jung,
1923). Although this approach is the object of a great deal of debate (Pittenger,
1991), the information that can be obtained by the knowledge of these demises
has compelling educational merit. Presently there are tests that in effect
measure two of the Jungian dimensions to some degree (Kolb, 1976; Gregorc,
1978), and the Myers- Briggs Temperament Sorter that measures all four, but has
the disadvantage of being written with adult content and vocabulary that does
not perform well with school age subjects. Other efforts at a student version
have been disappointing (Murphy & Meisgeier, 1987).

Construct validity as well as reliability seem to be the major
reasons for hesitation with the use of the four dimension instruments. Research
seems to be mixed but there is some reason to question the implicit claim of
bimodality. If in fact the ends of each dimension are opposed with most people
falling on "one side of the fence" or the other, the shape of the
distributions should be bimodal. This has been both supported (Myers, 1979;
1985) and found unsupported (Stricker & Ross, 1962; Hicks, 1984). There also
seems to be a suggestion that the degree to which one falls on one side of the
scale or the other is related to achievement (Meisgeier, 1988).

The four dimension model is also criticized for the construct
problem with the assumption of independence of scales, especially the
Intuitive/sensate and the judger/perceiver scales (Sipps, 1985). This was a
problem with the Murphy - Meisgeier Temperament Indicator. This effect seems to
be related to the age of the subject. The younger the subject the more likely
there will be a lack of independence (Pittenger, 1991). This has been a
problematic issue with the attempted construction of a student four dimension
test.

Groups with distinct characteristics have been shown to behave
differently in their distribution in relation to a normative distribution on the
four dimensions or sixteen types. Creative types and "gifted" students
typically show elevations on introversion and intuition, and to a lesser extent
their perceiver score (Conary 1965; Myers 1985).

There has long been the assumption that most dropouts and
problem students come from the extroverted with sensate combination, which is
labeled the "kinesthetic" type by Barbe (1979) when referring to
learning modalities. Myers (1980) writes, "But the extroverted children
with sensing, the ES-- pupils, who make only minimal use of either intuition or
introversion, may find the symbols so confusing that they become discouraged
about the whole business of going to school. They may even decide hopelessly or
defiantly, that school is not for them."(p. ) This perspective is prevalent
in the education system. On one hand, IN types as a whole do go farther in
school with more academic success (Myers, 1985), but there seems to be an
assumption that makes people like and stay in school has to do solely with
academic success, and that schools are about sitting and taking-in static
information. The complex issues of why school works or does not work for
students may be too simplistically conceived.

There has been little research found in the area of cultural
difference in the functioning of the Jungian dimension tests. This may be in
part due to the difficulty in separating the cultural differences from the macro
personality differences that characterize any subgroup, and it may be due to the
sensitivity of the whole venture. This study will attempt to look at the
differential functioning in light of culture, although it is not designed such
that it can draw any strong conclusions. This would be a worthy future focus in
this area of study.

Methods

Subjects

Groups represented three different school populations.
Subjects were taken from three settings within thirty miles of a major Northwest
city. 61 student subjects were tested from an Alternative High school located in
lower economic level Urban setting. Subjects were selected as they registered
and were admitted for a required Health Education Course. Subjects were 96%
nonwhite minority students (72% black) who had voluntarily opted, or been placed
as a "last chance" into this particular urban alternative school. The
school was characterized by its individual attention and individualized pace of
work and its near homogeneous population. The subject population represents all
admitted students. The students included 34 males, and 27 females. Students
ranged from 14 to 19 years old.

The second set of subjects (N=70) was selected at a randomly
selected location within a suburban school district, and contained all students
enrolled in band courses at the particular middle school. The students included
37 females and 33 males. Students ranged from 13 years old to 15.

The third sample (N=100) was unsystematically selected from
three school districts in the vicinity of the city. The students represented
randomly selected students ask to complete the test including the verification
forms, on site, during the school period. This sample included a balanced
frequency of students from 10 years to 17 years old, and was equally split by
gender, 50 females, and 50 males.

Instrument

The instrument used was the Paragon Temperament and Learning
style Indicator (version 3.2). It consists of a 36 item, four dimension
self-report survey, and two interpretive and verificative documents. All 36
items on the inventory are forced choice "A" or "B",
questions, with the option of an "X" answer where one could not
decide.

The test intended to measure the four dimensions of Jungian
personality as indicators of learning style. The four dimensions were considered
independent and measured with equal weight. The first dimension is
introversion/extroversion. This scale indicates the degree to which one's ego
emerges into the group and the orientation toward perception style. The second
dimension is that of sensation/intuition. This scale measures what is commonly
held in the field as abstraction vs. concreteness, as well as cognitive style
considerations. The third dimension is that of thinker/feeler. This dimension in
the educational setting is most concerned with how students approach conflict or
fragmentation. Do they prefer harmony or delineation? The fourth scale is that
of judger/perceiver. It contains what is commonly held as the random vs.
sequential duality, as well as open vs. decisive tendencies.

Subjects are given the directions to answer as quickly and
honestly as possible, and reminded there are no right answers. After completion,
scores can be tallied by the subject as the answer sheet is arranged in columns
and can be easily summed in each category.

Because the primary function of the application of the
instrument was to give students an accurate indication of type, the interpretive
documents were used to verify the type obtained by the survey, and make
adjustment when necessary (but adjustment was rare, giving an informal indicator
of reliability).

Procedure

In the Urban Alternative group all testing was done on an
individual basis as students entered the course throughout the semester. Each
subject was given standard directions before they were given the test. As with
all groups an administrator was present during testing to answer questions about
any practical subject considerations or problems. Upon completion of the items
each subject was given an individual consultation about what their score meant,
as well as a verification of the score obtained from the survey and the
categories they identified with on the dimensional comparison, and the
combination comparison forms.

In the Band classes, testing was done in whole classes with
the entire class being given instructions, and interpretation at once. Testing
was done during three separate class periods of fifty minutes, with the entire
group taking part in all three cases.

In the Sample group testing was done in small groups and with
individuals. Again standard directions were given and surveys were completed
with an administrator near by to answer questions regarding technical aspects of
completing the test. Scores were totaled in most cases by the subject, and in
some cases by the administrator.

Uniformity of testing was considered adequate since directions
were both given in writing on the test sheets and were given by administrators.
Also, post-testing verification and consultation was not considered in the data,
so differences there are cannot be analyzed.

Analysis

Analysis was performed in three areas. First, item response p
values were compared across groups. Second, an exploratory principle components
factor analysis was performed on the entire sample, as well as each of the
groups for the use of comparison. Third, group type distributions were compared
in light of their observed as well as expected differences in relation to each
the four dimensions as well as the sixteen-type overall distribution structure.

The instrument as a whole was additionally analyzed in light
of its factor analytic properties. Strength on items, and dimensions, as well as
independence was of particular interest.

Results

Factor Analysis

The instrument was analyzed using a principle components
exploratory factor analysis. The factors were rotated using a verimax rotation
with 4 designated factors. When the whole group (N=230) was factored in, the
scales performed very well. 27 of the 36 items loaded at .50 or higher. The
range was .26 to .73. All items except one factored highest on their prescribed
scale. Independence was concluded for the four scales and 33 of the 36 items.
Only three items seemed to lack strong independent loading (two from the N/S
factor, and one from the T/F factor).

When the urban group was factored, the interpretation and
analysis were confounded by the small sample (N=61). This may in part explain
the lack of independence of scales two and four. The Extrovert/Introvert scale
did emerge to a satisfactory degree. Seven of the nine items loaded sufficiently
on the factor (ranging from .30 to .51). The Thinker/Feeler scale also performed
well. Seven of nine items loaded sufficiently (ranging from .26 to .58). The
Sensing/Intuitive scale and the Judging Perceiving scales performed much less
independently for this group. Both scale's sets of items loaded onto factor one
(13 of 18), or did not load on any of the scales to any significant degree.

Dimension differences

When group means (Table 1) were compared on each of the four
dimensions with analysis of variance, all four dimensions showed an overall
significant effect (table 2). Tukey post-hoc analysis showed that the individual
differences were not consistent across the scales, varying for each scale.

The Introvert/Extrovert scale showed an overall difference (F
= 5.07, p=.007). The variance was attributed to the difference between the band
group mean and as compared to the other two groups (b vs. u p=.01, b vs. c
.p=05). This suggests that the band group had a higher population of extroverts.

The Sensate/Intuitive scale also showed an overall significant
effect (F = 3.55 p=.03). The Urban group scored significantly higher than the
two suburban groups on sensate scores. Their scores also much more closely
matched the expected general population mean score that would be predicted with
the test (about 40% initiatives), this is predictable within the band population
but was not expected in the control group.

The thinker/feeler dimension showed a difference in much the
same manner. The urban group scored at or around the expected general population
mean but differed from the control group (p=.002), while the overall effect was
again significant (F=5.8 p=.003). This result was again repeated with the
Judger/Perceiver by group analysis. The urban sample scores showed a strong
Judger preference, and the control group was skewed toward the perceiver side
(p=.011). The overall effect was significant as well (F=4.17 p=.017).

Table 1

Mean scores on four dimensions of personality by group

Group

scale Urban Alt Band Suburban Overall

Extro/Introvert 13.93 13.68 12.79 13.37

Intuitive/Sensate 13.43 14.19 14.34 14.05

Thinker/Feeler 13.14 12.42 11.95 12.40

Judger/Perceiver 13.17 14.00 14.32 13.92

Table 2

Analysis of Variance of Group Means across the four
personality dimensions

scale F - Ratio df P value

Extro/Introvert 5.01 2,227 .007

Intuitive/Sensate 3.55 2,227 .030

Thinker/Feeler 5.81 2,227 .003

Judger/Perceiver 4.17 2,227 .017

Item differences

Although there was not clear support that the instrument
functioned the same for all groups, a survey of items suggested that items
functioned similarly to overall dimension scores within groups, with few
exceptions. Items that had a very differential functioning between groups
corresponded to scales where groups differed in their overall scoring pattern.
Considering the fact that the greatest differences on scales was on the E/I and
J/P dimension, and these were the two scales that factor analyzed sufficiently
with the small urban sample, findings were analyzed with sufficient confidence.

The exception to this pattern was item #29; When it comes to
news at school, you seem A. to find it out quickly B. to be one of the last to
know. The band group scored at a 55% proportion that was an introverted score
(which was contrary to the other introverted/extroverted items that they
reported as extroverts), and the urban group scored at the 27% proportion (which
is well into the extroverted range), which was counter their overall scale
tendency. However, this item was the only exception to the tendency of the items
to reflect the group tendency on the overall dimension. This item's differential
functioning could be in part explained by the nature of the particular urban
setting from which the subjects were selected. News is spread at an astounding
rate.

Table 3 indicates the proportion of students from each group
who fall into categories of type on the two dimensions most associated with
learning (Kolb, 76). The Urban group had a higher proportion of members in the
Introverted Intuitive group that has shown the most academic aptitude and
academic performance of the four types (Conaray, 1965; Myers, 1978,79, 80, 82).
Conversely they had the lowest proportion of students in the Extroverted-
Intuitive category. The E/S category is most associated with outgoingness and
verbal ability. On the single category measures the urban group scored at twice
the proportion of Judgers (as opposed to Perceivers), as the other two groups,
and 60% higher than the expected population mean. The over representation of
both Introverts and Judgers in the urban group in of particular significance.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to compare temperament scores and
instrument functioning across three groups from different typed of school
populations. Overall the instrument functioned very well and demonstrated a good
degree of validity. As expected groups did differ on each dimension, but the
differences were not consistent with the expected findings given the common
research assumptions especially with respect to the urban alternative group.

It could be concluded that the Paragon Learning Style and
Temperament Indicator showed high degrees of both content and construct
validity. Construct validity was demonstrated by the high factor loadings and
independence of each factor. The factors did not perform as well with the
smaller group (N=61,69,100) samples as it did with the entire sample (N=230).
Content validity was supported in part by the high degree to which items' scores
correlated highly with their overall dimension across each of the three groups.
This validation was also found in the informal setting of the administration
where test scores were compared to verification lists of behaviors and traits of
those who should have scored a given way on a scale or combination of scales.

The results suggested that groups scored overall differently,
on each of the four dimensions. It was predicted that the band group scores
would be elevated on the Intuitive scale, Perceiver, and the feeler scales. This
was in fact the case. They were additionally high on extroversion to a
significant degree. The band group was also very differentiated in terms of
their distribution. It was a true bimodal distribution with a definite skew
toward the preferred end of the scale. If it is the case that the band group
represented high achieving students, then it would give support for the
hypothesis that differentiation of type is correlated positively with academic
ability.

The control group performed much more like the band group than
either the urban group or an expected normative sample. This calls into question
the sampling procedure used to obtain these subjects. It would appear the group
was not representative of a typical population. The elevations on both the
feeler dimension and the perceiver dimension were significantly high. While this
has been found in previous research (Murphy & Meisgeier, 1989), it is most
likely a function of the sample as opposed to the test.

The generalizabity of these findings is limited. None of the
three groups were coded for ethnic identification and the representativeness of
each group is questionable. So an effort to draw conclusive ethnic
generalizations seems unwarranted. Although there does seem some reason to draw
some conclusions about how different student populations differ in their
temperament type. The urban alternative sample showed some characteristics that
were of note, and may give some insight into why certain students choose schools
of this kind.

The urban students although their distributions were in three
of four cases were flat or normally shaped as opposed to bimodal (only the T/F
scale), their distribution "type wise" was significant when compared
with the assumptions of the profession. Given the assumption that most dropouts
come from the extroverted- concrete (sensate) combination, it is noteworthy to
see in this sample that approximately 60 percent of students were introverted.
Additionally, although the urban sample had a lower percentage of abstracts
(initiatives), they were approximately equal to the expected general population
(about 40-50%). In fact there were more (N=19) students who scored as
introverted- abstracts, assumed to be the most academically oriented type, than
extroverted- concretes (N=17), who are the predicted type for a "problem
student school".

Moreover the urban group scored higher on both thinker and
Judger scales, which are both further predictors of academic success, especially
at the higher levels (Myers 1985; Morphord, 1988), as well as in the area of
standardized tests. These findings seem to suggest that the hypothesis that
certain types will be more "successful" or "comfortable" in
certain school settings needs to be rethought, and may be more complex than
originally suggested.

It seems to be there is an assumption that "school"
has a certain universal character, and that some people are more suited to it
than others. If this were ever actually true, it may be much less true today. It
is the feeling of the researcher that academic success is a small part of what
makes school "work" or "not work" for students. In the urban
populations used in this study, the assumption would be that "good student
types" would be more likely to be satisfied with their school, stay in it,
and do well as students. On the other hand, "less academically inclined
types" would be more apt to perform poorly and get into trouble because of
a need to act out, etc.

The results of this study seem to suggest this is untrue. Yet
why would "academic types" land in alternative schools and perform at
very low level toward academic goals? A possible answer could come from an
analysis of the dimension preferred by the urban group. Introversion is said to
correlate with academic success (Myers, 1985; Lawrence, 1979; Provost, 1985).
Although this is well supported, it can also be the case that introversion
causes adjustment and socialization problems. School success must be defined
more broadly than just grades to include how one seems to fit in and feel their
needs being met by the system. This is particularly difficult when one is young
and feels as though they are inadequate due to some inability, as opposed to an
innate orientation. This dynamic is exacerbated even further in cultural
settings where sociability and conformity are highly reinforced.

The high percentage of thinking types in the urban group may
contribute to this phenomenon even further. A thinker's serious and critical
approach may not only cause others to be less comfortable and cause a less
approachable demeanor, it lends itself to a higher degree of over analysis of
the situation which one finds him/herself. The "cool" label that may
be attributed to the thinker may reinforce a certain self image as well.

The fact that there was nearly twice the expected percentage
of "IN"s in the urban population as is expected in a typical school
(and even less would be expected in a school where the academic level was
generally low), was noteworthy. This suggests that having a scientific mind does
not necessarily orient one toward scientific pursuits in a traditional sense. If
one were accustomed to street life, it would be quite possible that the thinking
style of the IN would be to make a lucrative existence on the street, more
attractive and reinforcing than sitting in a classroom where what was being
taught appeared trivial and waste of one's talent, and the discomfort of being a
"personality minority."

It is unclear whether there was a cultural effect in the
differential item functioning. It remains a question whether groups differed
because they were acculturated to report in certain patterns of whether the
populations were attracted to their setting and courses because of their similar
orientations. Research seems strongly to support that creative and performing
types tend to have very different distribution. This is usually characterized by
elevations on the intuitive and feeler dimensions (Myers, 1985). This was
supported in the band sample in this study.

It would be a suggestion for further research to compare level
of acculturation and differences in reporting across the type scales. Of
particular interest would be the Judger/Perceiver scale. If this were a factor
in the variance of scores found between groups, it would raise some interesting
research and construct validity issues.